these three are suspect, the one called "coccicaulis" came labelled as such, I'm sure it's either D.slackii or D.venusta
The other 2 are from seeds, I have reason to believe that the one labelled "spatulata" is maybe a D.dielsiana??
And the one labelled "villosa" I think may actually be D.spatulata as well... anyone??the culprits
"You don't need a license
to drive a sandwich
D. slackii is a totally differnt species from your plants. D. coccicaulis and D. venusta are identical or confused, at least in Western countries.
Your D. spatulata is not D. dielsiana but true D. spatulata, and your D. villosa is seemingly D. spatulata or something similarly shaped.
I would agree with the last assessments (although I do not believe D. coccicaulis and D. venusta are seperate species!) The last (villosa) appears to be the white flowered form of D. spatulata from Australia.
Drosera "coccicaulis" is a Drosera venusta! The only difference is, that D. "coccicaulis" was collected at a different location. Botanicaly, the name is invalid, but for horticultural purposes it should be kept.
For the history of D. "coccicaulis" go to this thread an read what Stefan has posted.
Sorry to go off topic here, but I reviewed that post. I will grant you that a collection of a different form of D, venusta was made and the "bogus" name was given to it. But, years later, whereis the original reference? It wasn't published in a protolouge. I've read the debates and Robert Gibson's assessment. I remain unconvinced that anyone really knows the difference. I've grown seed of D. venusta that was confirmed by Robert, and the plants were exactly like the D. "coccicaulis" I had in cultivation. Also the issues of uncontrolled fertilization in cultivated plants makes the matter even more confused. Was this D. "coccicaulis" placed in a herbarium or private collection where care was taken to prevent hybridization? Is there some grower who has both forms in cultivation? Are these forms distinct enough that side by side there can be no question that they are different?
Even if there is such a grower (Hi Stephan!) it is always possible that a mistake could be made, even by the experts. This is why we have to rely on the publication - either at species status or as a cultivar. I can't accept there is a difference if I can't find references that site these distinctions. I don't even believe that D. venusta is more than a reigonal variation of D. natalensis! To tell the truth, I pretty much reject the whole current species concept as applied to South African droserae both on the levels of observational and DNA studies. There are far too many "species" already out of South Africa, and better most of them be referred to as members of the D. natalensis/aliciae complex at a level other than "species" (e.g. nidiformis/dielsiana admirabilis/cuneifolia). If there is a "true" example of the original D. coccicaulis, I would urge the grower to publish at least a cultivar description to which standard the unenlightened may refer, but I think it will be a hard job to distinguish between the two forms unless great care was taken to insure genetic purity within the collection. If the plants were allowed to flower together in the same room, the resulting generations must always be in question, even if grown by experts.
nice you are back!
I also cannot distinguish all my forms of D. venusta from D. "coccicaulis" (got it from Stefan some years ago, so far only vegetatively reproduced). But i have plants of D. venusta, that are quite different to D. "coccicaulis". Maybe the similar looking plants, that are around as D. venusta are also what PD called D. "coccicaulis" in his greenhouse in Munich? Who knows? And yes, there is no reference, that i know of, for Drosera coccicaulis other than the Articel from Robert Gibson. Anyway, i think it makes some sense to keep the name with this plants. I don't think, that a cultivar description can be of any further help in this matter, except for the validation of the name.
For me Drosera venusta represents one extreme of a large complex of plants, that definitely needs some work. I am sure, this will be done in the nearer future. So, let's wait what will happen. For me, D. venusta and D. natalensis are different enough to be their own species (although i would not say, that D. venusta is the best species). If anyone has some location plants of D. venusta/natalensis/dielsiana/aliciae, i would be very interested in them!
Some more offtopic. I can see more difference in D. admirabilis and D. cuneifolia than in many other species (size, stipules, styles.....). If adult plants are compared, they cannot be confused. Here is a picture i have taken, that compares D. cuneifolia and D. admirabilis. Even if you do not know the details you will see, that these plants are different. The D. admirabilis are not looking too good, as they werre repotted before the picture was taken.